A computer-assisted telephone collaborative care intervention provided by lay providers for the treatment of comorbid depression and at-risk drinking: Analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Virtual collaborative care for people with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking lacks strong evidence. Our aim was to assess the impact of 12 months of telephone collaborative care (tCC) versus enhanced usual care (eUC) on depression and drinking. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the Primary care Assessment and Research of a Telephone intervention for Neuropsychiatric conditions with Education and Resources study (PARTNERs), a blinded randomized controlled trial. We examined 144 participants with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking, of which 129 were from the original sample whose data have been published, and 15 were studied since the original report had been published. PARTNERs compared eUC consisting of usual care plus assessment of symptoms at baseline, and 4, 8, and 12 months later vs. tCC consisting of eUC plus telephone-based coaching and symptom monitoring provided by a lay mental health technician to patients supervised by a psychiatrist. The study assessed depression response and remission using logistic regression; we assessed trajectory of drinking using Generalized-estimating equations (GEE). Baseline factors associated with likelihood of not exceeding number of drinks at 12 months were identified using decision trees. RESULTS: tCC produced a faster decline in the number of drinks than eUC (Wald Χ2 = 9.47, p = 0.02). However, drinking and depression outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups at the end of treatment. Higher alcohol consumption at baseline (≥18 standard drinks per week in the tCC group and ≥11 standard drinks per week in the eUC group) was associated with a higher likelihood of having at-risk drinking after 12 months of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, compared to eUC, tCC may accelerate drinking reductions in patients with comorbid depression and at-risk drinking. Both treatments were equally effective at the end of treatment for both depression and drinking outcomes.

A Collaborative-Care Telephone-Based Intervention for Depression, Anxiety, and at-Risk Drinking in Primary Care: The PARTNERs Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Collaborative care (CC) could improve outcomes in primary care patients with common mental conditions. We assessed the effectiveness of a transdiagnostic model of telephone-based CC (tCC) delivered by lay providers to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking. METHODS: PARTNERS was a pragmatic trial in 502 primary care adults presenting with depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, or at-risk drinking randomized to (1) usual care by primary care providers (PCPs) enhanced with the results of computer-assisted telephone-based assessments (at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 months later) (enhanced usual care [eUC]) or (2) tCC consisting of eUC plus frequent telephone coaching and psychoeducation provided by mental health technicians who also communicated to the PCP recommendations from a psychiatrist for evidence-based pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, or, when indicated, referrals to mental health services. The primary analysis compared the change on the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in participants presenting with depression (n = 366) randomized to tCC versus eUC. Secondary analyses compared changes on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 scale (GAD-7) in those presenting with anxiety (n = 298); or change in the number of weekly drinks in those presenting with at-risk drinking (n = 176). RESULTS: There were no treatment or time×treatment effects between tCC and eUC on PHQ-9 scores for patients with depression during the 12-month follow-up. However, there was a treatment effect (tCC > eUC) on GAD-7 scores in those with anxiety and a time×treatment interaction effect on the number of weekly drinks (tCC > eUC) in those with at-risk drinking. CONCLUSION: Implementing transdiagnostic tCC for common mental disorders using lay providers appears feasible in Canadian primary care. While tCC was not better than eUC for depression, there were some benefits for those with anxiety or at-risk drinking. Future studies will need to confirm whether tCC differentially benefits patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking.

Recruiting for a Randomized Clinical Trial for Late-Life Depression During COVID-19: Outcomes of Provider Referrals Versus Facebook Self-Referrals.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of online recruitment for a clinical trial of pharmacotherapy for late-life depression during COVID-19. METHODS: The authors calculated the yield, defined as recruitment leading to randomization (enrollment), from provider referrals versus Facebook self-referrals; compared characteristics and drop-out rates of participants from each source; and analyzed correlations between stringency of public health restrictions and referrals from each source over time. RESULTS: Provider referrals had a significantly higher yield (10 of 33 referrals; 30.3%) versus Facebook self-referrals (14 of 323; 4.3%) (p <0.00001). Participants self-referred from Facebook had significantly more education; otherwise, both groups had similar characteristics and drop-out rates. While public health stringency was negatively correlated with provider referrals (ρ = -0.32) and positively correlated with Facebook self-referrals (ρ = 0.39), neither association reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Online recruitment may improve access to clinical research for older depressed adults. Future studies should evaluate cost-effectiveness and potential barriers such as computer literacy.

The primary care assessment and research of a telephone intervention for neuropsychiatric conditions with education and resources study: Design, rationale, and sample of the PARTNERs randomized controlled trial.

While most patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking receive care exclusively in primary care settings, primary care providers experience challenges in diagnosing and treating these common problems. Over the past two decades, the collaborative care model has addressed these challenges. However, this model has been adopted very slowly due to the high costs of care managers; inability to sustain their role in small practices; and the perceived lack of relevance of interventions focused on a specific psychiatric diagnosis. Thus, we designed an innovative randomized clinical trial (RCT), the Primary Care Assessment and Research of a Telephone Intervention for Neuropsychiatric Conditions with Education and Resources study (PARTNERs). This RCT compared the outcomes of enhanced usual care and a novel model of collaborative care in primary care patients with depressive disorders, generalized anxiety, social phobia, panic disorder, at-risk drinking, or alcohol use disorders. These conditions were selected because they are present in almost a third of patients seen in primary care settings. Innovations included assigning the care manager role to trained lay providers supported by computer-based tools; providing all care management centrally by phone - i.e., the intervention was delivered without any face-to-face contact between the patient and the care team; and basing patient eligibility and treatment selection on a transdiagnostic approach using the same eligibility criteria and the same treatment algorithms regardless of the participants' specific psychiatric diagnosis. This paper describes the design of this RCT and discusses the rationale for its main design features.

Challenges in conducting research on collaborative mental health care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: We sought to understand poor uptake of the Primary Care Assessment and Research of a Telephone Intervention for Neuropsychiatric Conditions with Education and Resources study (PARTNERs), a pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for people experiencing depression, anxiety or at-risk drinking. We explored primary care providers' experience with PARTNERs, and preferences regarding collaborative care models and trials. METHODS: In this qualitative study, we interviewed primary care providers across Ontario who had participated in PARTNERs, using stratified sampling to reach high-, low- and nonreferring providers in urban and rural settings. We audio-recorded, transcribed and thematically analyzed the interviews between May and December 2017, collecting and analyzing data concurrently until achieving saturation. RESULTS: We interviewed 23 primary care providers. They valued the unique availability of telephone-based coaching for patients but desired greater integration of the coach into their practice. They appreciated expert psychiatric recommendations but rarely changed their practices. Sites varied in organizational adoption and implementation of the study, including whether they designated a local champion, proactively identified eligible patients, integrated the study into existing workflows and reflected on (and revised) practices. These behaviours affected continuing awareness of the study and referral rates. INTERPRETATION: Study uptake was influenced by the limited relationship between PARTNERs coaches and primary care providers, and variable attention to leadership, training and quality improvement as vital elements of collaborative care. Study designs focusing on implementation could promote reach and penetration of novel interventions in the practice setting and more successfully advance collaborative care implementation.

Computer-Aided Telephone Support for Primary Care Patients with Common Mental Health Conditions: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression, anxiety, and at-risk drinking are highly prevalent in primary care settings. Many jurisdictions experience geographical barriers to accessing mental health services, necessitating the development and validation of alternative models of care delivery. Existing evidence supports the acceptability and effectiveness of providing mental health care by telephone. OBJECTIVE: This analysis assesses patient's acceptability of computer-aided telephone support delivered by lay providers to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking. METHODS: The Primary care Assessment and Research of a Telephone intervention for Neuropsychiatric conditions with Education and Resources study is a randomized controlled trial comparing a computer-aided telephone-based intervention to usual care enhanced by periodic assessments in adult primary care patients referred for the treatment of depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking; no part of the study involves in-person contact. For this analysis, the following data were obtained: reasons provided for declining consent; reasons provided for withdrawing from the study; study retention rate; and a thematic analysis of a satisfaction survey upon study completion. RESULTS: During the consent process, 17.1% (114/667) patients referred to the study declined to participate and 57.0% of them (65/114) attributed their refusal to research-related factors (ie, randomization and time commitment); a further 16.7% (19/114) declined owing to the telephone delivery of the intervention. Among the 377 participants who were randomized to the 1-year intervention, the overall retention rate was 82.8% (312/377). Almost no participants who withdrew from the study identified the telephone components of the study as their reason for withdrawal. Analysis of a qualitative satisfaction survey revealed that 97% (38/39) of comments related to the telephone components were positive with key reported positive attributes being accessibility, convenience, and privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a computer-aided telephone support is highly acceptable to primary care patients with depression, anxiety, or at-risk drinking. In particular, these patients appreciate its accessibility, flexibility, and privacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02345122; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02345122 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73R9Q2cle).

Understanding Mental Health Service User Experiences of Restraint Through Debriefing: A Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine debriefing data to understand experiences before, during, and after a restraint (seclusion, chemical, and physical) event from the perspective of inpatients at a large urban mental health and addiction hospital. METHOD: Audits were conducted on a purposeful sample of inpatient charts containing post-restraint event inpatient debrief forms (n = 55). Qualitative data from the forms were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Loss of autonomy and related anger, conflict with staff and other inpatients, and unmet needs were the most common factors precipitating restraint events. Inpatients often reported that increased communication with staff could have prevented restraint. Inpatients described having had various negative emotional states and responses during restraint events, including fear and rejection. Post-restraint, inpatients often desired to leave the unit for fresh air or to engage in leisure activities. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, our study is the first to use debriefing form data to explore mental health inpatients' experiences of restraint. Inpatients view restraint negatively and do not experience it as a therapeutic intervention. Debriefing, guided by a form, is useful for understanding the inpatient's experience of restraint, and should be used to re-establish the therapeutic relationship and to inform plans of care. In addition, individual and collective inpatient perspectives should inform alternatives to restraint.